Often, short selling can be a perfectly rational strategy.īut since the meme frenzy started in early 2021, many more retail investors have been taking shorting personally. With all this said, it’s important to note that many heavily-shorted companies do have problems with their business fundamentals or valuations. This calling - i.e., buying - spurs prices higher still, creating a sort of runaway flywheel effect. I AM NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR DONT COME BITCHING.Under the right circumstances, short-sellers get overwhelmed and are forced to close their positions as they accumulate losses and their margin calls are burned. THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT THEM HAVING COVERED MUCH AT ALL, YOU TAKE FROM THIS WHAT YOU WILL. NOTE: NONE OF THIS EVEN TAKES INTEREST INTO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR COSTS, IT IS ALL JUST THEORETICAL COVERING COSTS ALONE. My point for my want is this: It is impossible that SI% is not more than 226% as was said on the 15th as the costs would be to great and the data is just not there to support it but instead I came to the conclusion that we are way fucking past that for simmilar reasons I believe that SI% is over 600%, as I believe that certain companies ran while they could, spending 10 billion dollars AT MOST between them all for covering.īecause you cannot justify over 20% of long volume transfers being covering, its mostly algos and day traders as for calls, I just dont see that going over 30% as its abundantly clear calls are being used against them, not for them. It is litterally impossible for it to be under 200% rn as it would be too costly. IN CONCLUSION: Using My data, I was able to derive that the 535.9% SI% being passed around would cost Short Sellers 25 BILLION DOLLARS theoretically. Table 2: Shows the cost of doing those coverings.
Table 1: Shows how many Shorts are there at different intervals of covering on Off-market and On-market. I wrote down the FINVIZ float, the SI% from FINRA, and derived the Short Volume at the time. If they covered through Long Volume on market, then we'd be able to estimate that CONSERVATIVELY by comparing the days low to the Daily long volume (Day's Low * LV). Thus I made MinimalCost of OFF-Exchange as (OEV * $40). So I said: If they covered through calls, then they as an extreme minimum paid 40$/share for them AND only would do so when GME was on the way up as it would be a waste of money otherwise. I realized that this all cost them a fuck ton. Then I calculated this: Total Short Volume (SV + SEV) let me manually import the short volume data since the 15th and see where this could go.Įxchanged Volume (Long Volume + Short Volume) I had thought it was impossible to figure out what it was now, but then I started digging into the Short Volume.Īt first, I had thought that it would be interesting if we could see how much they could have covered if 100% of long volume transfers went to covering shorts (Short Overflow). I am of the belief that at one point, FINRA said the truth about SI%. So, I have been freaking the fuck out about this. Here's what he's worked out spoiler alert: shorts r fuk
he just thought - how much can these short boys actually cover, if all shorts opened were intended to be covered. The base behind his findings was that any short volume over 50% cannot be 100% covered that day. So my colleague, who has no reddit account and wishes to be anonymous has been doing some maths (or math for you americans) in an attempt to back solve Short interest, using short volume & trading volume. Edit: have passed on various comments to him so will reply once he gets back to me
0 kommentar(er)
